Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42625982›Full record

ReviewHealth services insights2026

A Comparison of the Long-Term Care Systems in Norway and England.

Jolie R Keemink, Maren K R Sogstad, Nick J Smith, Alison C Charles, Ann-Marie Towers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health services insights, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jolie R KeeminkCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-4530
Maren K R SogstadDepartment of Health Sciences, Norges Teknisk-naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Gjøvik, Norway.
Nick J SmithCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Alison C CharlesCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Ann-Marie TowersHealth and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In a context of rapid population ageing, most countries face major challenges to prepare their long-term care systems to meet rising demands. It is vital that research examines how systems can adapt to these demographic changes. International comparisons between long-term care systems can support the identification of shared lessons on the advantages and disadvantages of different systems and associated outcomes. Objective: To analyse and compare the long-term care systems in Norway and in England and identify lessons from this comparison. Method: Using Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, this comparative overview analysed the commonalities and differences between the two systems. Data were identified from Government websites, relevant publications, and websites from key national sector organisations from the time period in which the study was conducted (2021-2025). Results: The Norwegian and English systems exhibit more similarities than differences. The most notable differences emerged in the structure component, particularly in terms of funding mechanisms and the degree of care integration. Differences were also evident in the outcome component, where national outcome measures are less systematically embedded in the Norwegian system. In contrast, the process component revealed that both countries have implemented similar initiatives to address shared challenges within their services. Conclusion: We argue that to build a system fit for the future, we need to confront elements currently unaddressed and to understand the interdependence within the triad of care (care recipient-informal carer-workforce), as well as its gendered nature.

Indexed as

Englandlong-term careNorwaysystems comparison

Identifiers

PMID42625982
PMCPMC13490791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.